Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1951 Lady Wigram Trophy
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1951 Lady Wigram Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Abandoned unfinished list article which is copyvio of this Falcadore (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a copyvio, because the information is an unoriginal list of facts. It's rather similar to copying a telephone book, which presents facts in a way that anyone could think of presenting them. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even when formatting is nearly identical? --Falcadore (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if that were the case, but that's not the case here. The other chart has significantly more information than this. It's quite natural to include information about position, name of driver, and type of car; nationality is important in an international race; and the engine type might well be significant to car-racing people. You can't copyright the arrangement of five columns of information. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even when formatting is nearly identical? --Falcadore (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not seem sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Includes nothing but a copy from a single source. Only one other year has an individual article and that is as insubstantial as this one, and should probably also be Afd'd unless more substantial sources are used. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I couldn't find any news or other source to support the article. CPerked (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.